get_review_context

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output contents (source snippets, callers, tests), which is useful, but omits whether the operation is read-only, how large outputs might be, or any other behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded phrase with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though its brevity trades off against completeness elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be detailed), the description is incomplete for a 2-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage: it neither explains the qualified-name format for 'qnames' nor the meaning or effect of 'context_lines'. It also lacks any usage context, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It vaguely implies 'qnames' are symbols but gives no format or semantics, and entirely ignores the 'context_lines' parameter (including its default of 2).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the specific artifacts returned (source snippets, callers, tests) and the scope (for given symbols), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_node or query_graph. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with any alternative tool, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_impact_radius or search_nodes. The phrase 'for the given symbols' implies a review context but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.